Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Banners and buttons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus ~ Anthøny 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Banners and buttons

This page appears to be of no real value to the project. All the images used for these lists of banners and buttons are copyright to the Foundation. The use of copyright images outside the mainspace is not justified by our present policy on unfree content. WjBscribe 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: While the foundation has not taken a firm stance on this, these buttons are being used scattershot both on Wikipedia and off. I don't think we should be supporting this sort of activity in this manner. --Durin 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: or provide an alternative site for linking to banner ads... is there one? Mrdthree 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Mrdthree is now canvassing people to contribute to this MfD, polluting the consensus field. --Durin 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please mind WP:NPA.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Since there's no personal attack, I'm at a loss as to understand why you are making such a warning and note that you have come here after a message from Mrdthree was left on your talk page [1] alerting you to this, thus proving my point. --Durin 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Alerting others of discussion they may be interested in is good for the community; Wikipedia success is build on its transparency. Discouraging them and condemning their actions, accusing them of canvassing and polluting the consensus is an impolite and bad faith action, quite fitting WP:NPA and certainly a violation of WP:CIV and WP:AGF.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Declaring support for Wikipedia and advertising it is among ourselves is part of the community. Acting against it is undermining the community that created Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Sorry, I can't agree with "OMG U R UNDERMINING THE COMMUNITY!", even indirectly. But absent a Foundation statement, this seems like it's fine, and it's certainly legal fair use. -Amarkov moo! 21:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I fail to see how using our own copyrighted content on our own server is a violation of copyright law. (although it could violate some of the strictly-worded policies, but I'd argue for spirit of the rules in this case). Nardman1 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, actually, several of them are entirely created from free content. The gallery of ones based on the wikipedia logo are more questionable, but they aren't the whole page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Proposal. OK, I'm starting to see some rationale for keeping these. The bit that really bothers me is header: "You may be able to use these on your own website under the doctrine of fair use, but please be aware that official project logos are trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation." Downstream users really can't use this material as it dilutes the trademark. About the only time they could be used as fair use is in a critical commentary of the design (which isn't how they are going to be used). I would be willing to support keeping the page if we could agree a change to the header that emphasises that while the GDFL images can be used, the others are stricly the copyright of the Foundation and could only be used in very narrow circumstances. Would that be an acceptable compromise? WjBscribe 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Counterproposal: How about limiting the use of Wikimedia copyrighted media to non-article space (an exact inverse of the fair use rules) which would pretty much put a damper on any downstream use (since most downstream content is articles) except articles where fair use (with permission, since I'm pretty sure we can give ourselves permission) applies? Nardman1 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The logos aren't used in articles, that not the downstream use that is of concern, its the use of them by people on their own websites as standalone images which the pages seems to encourage that is problematic. WjBscribe 11:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I see your point. I have stricken out my keep comment because a) the use of copyrighted Wikimedia logos outside article space may run afoul of current policy (silly as that sounds, considering the logo is at the top of every page) and this page appears to be encouraging people to use the content off-Wikipedia and we have no clear guidance from the Foundation. Your proposal warning people of potential copyright issues sounds reasonable in the interim. Nardman1 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the development of the actual WP logo is detailed here. Opening up a page for everyone to put their own homemade logos is too much potential for abuse. meshach 03:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Same thing could be said about the whole wikipedia project.Mrdthree 17:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You are right I guess. But making an official WP for them just seems to push the envelope to me. People are free to create them in their own space; I just think that putting them in WP implies that they are official. meshach 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If trademark is the concern, how about rewording the portion showing trademarked logos to something like what Google does at [2] -- i.e. something like "These are trademarked logos for viewing only, use the non-trademarked ones to link to Wikipedia from your website"?

BTW I believe the foundation should have some official logos to be used in buttons and banners a la [3]. I don't believe that would dilute the trademark, otherwise why would google have that page? -- Paddu 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.